Hate grievances? Why both sides should lean in.

I haven't seen a study on this, but casual research seems to indicate that HR staff generally don't enjoy union grievances. No surprise there, since most probably view them as a nuisance at best, taking up time better spent on responsibilities they consider more important. Sometimes a grievance can be a power play in a work unit. Sometimes there are hidden agendas. A grievance can be a slacker's attempt to gain cover, or a steward gratuitously building her political base, or serve any number of motivations. Often there are political undertones and implications for the business unit, the union, or both. But does that mean grievances shouldn't be heard?

It's worth mentioning that the same kind of thing happens around grievances (complaints, conflicts) in non-union companies too. Whether the fight is over leadership for the big project, sales territory or where the new vending machines will be located, the grievance is often just the tip of an iceberg representing only a part of a broader power struggle. In many cases, grievances are seen as petty by unaffected observers, including the people who manage their resolution. Hearing them out won't always change that perception, but it's worth remembering that someone stuck their neck out to bring their issue forward, and that's always significant. If he or she had decided to just "suck it up," then the issue - whether a "real" problem or a shot across an opponent's bow - survives and thrives. That's not a good thing.

Union people generally take grievances seriously. HR and other management should too, or at least take a look at this link - 5 Hidden Costs of Unresolved Conflict in the Workplace.